Vote.. on this atheistic position

[varit]

Meh, I "deny" the Abrahamic God - it's impossible. It's self contradicting, for fick sake.
I deny a magical space fairy who lives in Venus and controls the universe using a dildo as a wand - in that, although I can't be 100% secure about it (do not question the holy Fetish Fairy), I think it's so ridiculous, and there is such a lack of evidence that I can completely dismiss it. As simple as that.

And I deny any personal deity, for that matter. 99.9999% is enough for me. Remember, it's the same as 100%.

What is self-contradicting about the Abrahamic God?

I mean a literal contradiction about him..

Like believing in A and NOT A.. Not resolvable.

Let's say he's all powerful and all knowing and all good.. But he can't create a stone that he can't pick up.. And he can't make a square triangle.. and break the laws of logic.. He has to be logically coherent..in existence and behaviour.

If one asks, if he's all powerful and all knowing, why doesn' t he remove evil from the world. And if one goes further and says God would it's a contradiction to allow it. An answer could be it's not a contradiction because perhaps the evil fits into some grand scheme of things that we can't envision.. One could ask, can't he change the scheme to be just as good, but without the evil.. But maybe there are certain absolute truths.. to do so would be like making 1=2.. like creating a stone that he can't pick up.. He could have his reasons.. Maybe it's better for the evil to exist, and shortcutting it isn't as good overall. We may not know why.. But I'm not convinced we can say it's a contradiction for him to allow evil in the world. To say there couldn't be a greater good. To say that there couldn't even be a reason we cannot envision. I think the problem of evil makes him unlikely, but not that it's a logical contradiction making him impossible.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

All creator gods are defying logic.. creating something from nothing is like pulling the sun from a hat, actually even worse than that, it just doesn't follow. From nothing, only nothing can come.
Nothing is nothing, it is not something. 0=0 and not 1

0 + 1 = 1 and not 2, nothing + God = God, not god and the universe.
Also, if there is nothing, Where did god come from? Lets say there is only God and we can leave the nothingness away, God is the perfect being, why would it create anything? It would mean that god is not perfect, it was lacking the creation. Then we have an even bigger problem, Who created God? It always existed? Where? And why?



Also if we take the holy books as the source(s) for the belief in the Abrahamic god, there are way too many self refuting and contradictory claims making the whole thing not only unlikely, but impossible, let me know if you need (hundreds of) examples, tho i am sure you are aware of many of them anyway.

Then i have some more problems with the concepts... why would some being that makes the entire universe out of less than thin air, along with the angels and most of life on earth, require some earthly crap to create the humans? Why does it take time to do things when it is the creator of time? Why does it need our help to do it's work when it can do it faster and better on it's own?

If he/she/it is omnibenevolent, they wouldn't plague us with bowel diseases whenever they don't get their will or... make people rape little children after slaughtering everybody else etc.
It is ridiculous to claim god to have his own standards of good and evil when he (allegedly) is the source for our morality to judge about his actions and created us in "his image" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
If people think they can say that god is good, then they can also conclude that he is not when he does things like the global flood and other mass genocides, just as few of the mountains of reasons why i couldn't believe such a being to exist, let alone worship such a psychotic asshole.

If he is omniscient and omnipotent, he doesn't need to test people and can't be jealous and angry when something happens, because not only he already knew that it would happen, but he could have prevented and/or corrected it and if we believe that he is the alpha and the omega (and all the other letters as well), then he is the reason for why it happened and instead of being mad at the puny little creations and making their lives hell on earth, he should chastise himself.

Back to the gnomes.. if you think it is ok to dismiss my claim because i made it up (although i might have had a vision, or the pink unicorn told me or whatever) why can't we do that with the even more ridiculous claims about the countless gods that people believe(d) in? I am sure, no, i KNOW that they are all made up, many of them simply disfigured versions of other bed time stories, so why should i try to be "intellectually honest" and keep a door open for them?
Keep in mind that they can't all be right.. Actually pretty much only 1 version can be true since they usually exclude the others. Instead of leaving the door open for all of them i simply close it for all. They can open it by coming out of deluded people's heads and proving their own existence.. for a start.. then they might explain us why the universe is such a mess and start doing something about it.
Personally i think the gnomes hold more ground in reality than any of the deities, but it is not a reason for me to think they might be real :lol:

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Thomas...

Took the words... right out of my mouth.

Varit I'd advise you double-read Thomas's post here. As if it were me posting, eh'

 

[Dean]

(Attribution of the quote to McGinn added by me)
CosmicJoghurt

[ ... ] an atheist disbelieves in the existence of God , he believes that there is no God. He doesn't merely lack belief in a divinity; he positively believes in the absence of a divinity. [ ... ]

Wrong.

I'm annoyed when people fiddle with definitions.

I think that the term "atheist" is somewhat of a generic and rarely qualified term, when contextualized in this way. There is more than one school of atheism, as you know. Sadly, it so happens that McGinn fell into the pellucidly vacuous path of utilizing the term 'atheist' here, apparently failing to acknowledge the multiplicity of schools as I said, within that group. Colin McGinn is a "Strong Atheist" (as am I). The absence of belief in God or gods, is "weak" or "negative" atheism. I assume you fall within the second category, and not the former, yes?

 

[australopithecus]

Life would be so much easier if people used the correct application of the words gnostic or agnostic to clarify if they hold an atheistic position. At least then we'd know what opinion people hold, rather than blanket "...atheists believe x...".

 

[varit]

Sorry for the delay..

All creator gods are defying logic.. creating something from nothing is like pulling the sun from a hat, actually even worse than that, it just doesn't follow. From nothing, only nothing can come.
Nothing is nothing, it is not something. 0=0 and not 1

The bible doesn't say he created something from nothing.. though indeed many bible believers may believe he did.

People can have funny ideas about what nothing is..and even space is a something.

We don't know what nothing is.

If it means an empty vacuum..

But anyhow God himself is a something.

And without a God you still get difficult questions like How could the universe have started.. Was it always here, how can something e always here, we'd never get to the current position we're in. So it must've had a beginning, but what was before the beginning.

So just applying common sense when we know reality is very strange on questions of how the universe came to be, is not enough. And if we know we'll see rules broken when these things are discovered.. Then we shouldn't be so quick to jump to the conclusion that a Creature creating something from "nothing", is a contradiction.

How the universe can to be, you could always say is a contradiction..

0 + 1 = 1 and not 2, nothing + God = God, not god and the universe.
Also, if there is nothing, Where did god come from? Lets say there is only God and we can leave the nothingness away, God is the perfect being, why would it create anything? It would mean that god is not perfect, it was lacking the creation. Then we have an even bigger problem, Who created God? It always existed? Where? And why?

I don't know why a perfect God would've decided to create something.. maybe it's possible to not be out of a need. But he had some desire, because he thought it'd be good, not necessarily good for him, but good for us maybe, in ways we cannot determine...

I wouldn't say it's a contradiction for a perfect God to create something, it doesn't mean he lacks/needs something.

As to who created God.. Are you suggesting that the concept of a first cause is a contradiction? This question applies to the universe too.

it there was no first cause, you could say maybe the universe was always there.. which you could also say was contradictory..

Anyhow as you know the answer bible believers have is God was always there.. he wasn't created

Also if we take the holy books as the source(s) for the belief in the Abrahamic god, there are way too many self refuting and contradictory claims making the whole thing not only unlikely, but impossible, let me know if you need (hundreds of) examples, tho i am sure you are aware of many of them anyway.

just unlikely..

There are explanations, some of them very unsatisfactory, but logically consistent.. pathetic sometimes.. but any apparent contradiction in a book can be answered with some imagination.

It says the world was created in 6 days.. An interpreter could say God just wants readers to understand the world as if it was created in 6 days.

It says X is blue, later says X is grey, an interpreter could say it's not literal.. or it's trying to teach us something..

there's no end to implausible explanations..

Then i have some more problems with the concepts... why would some being that makes the entire universe out of less than thin air, along with the angels and most of life on earth, require some earthly crap to create the humans? Why does it take time to do things when it is the creator of time? Why does it need our help to do it's work when it can do it faster and better on it's own?

To teach us something. Like why create the world in 6 days and stop on the 7th.. To teach us to rest on the 7th. Why? That's a good question but one doesn't have to answer it to say it's not a contradiction to posit that he did it..

Isn't there a better way to teach us than to waste 6 days on it..

We think so but maybe we're wrong.. Allah knows best.

See it's not a contradiction.

If he/she/it is omnibenevolent, they wouldn't plague us with bowel diseases whenever they don't get their will or... make people rape little children after slaughtering everybody else etc.

well he's omni a lot of things.. and he has access to a bigger picture..

It sounds immensely unlikely, but -maybe- there's a reason.

i'd say why can't he change the bigger picture.. But maybe there are some absolutes that just are as they are, like A=A.

It is ridiculous to claim god to have his own standards of good and evil when he (allegedly) is the source for our morality to judge about his actions and created us in "his image" (whatever that is supposed to mean).
If people think they can say that god is good, then they can also conclude that he is not when he does things like the global flood and other mass genocides, just as few of the mountains of reasons why i couldn't believe such a being to exist, let alone worship such a psychotic asshole.

one answer very consistent with the bible, is that God's standard has nothing to do with morality, many examples demonstrate that..

by moral standards, the bible may come up moral in parts immoral in parts, and amoral in parts..

it has its own standard.


Another answer is that it is about morality but we're so thick compared to God, that we don't understand it. Like a stupid child being pulled away from a speeding car and scolded. I suppose another less stupid child may still not get it, but trust the person that pulled him away, that he has his best interests at heart. Similarly, as implausible as it may seem.. The God that wipes human beings out in plagues, has our or the worlds best interests at heart. He knows about our soul, and in the big picture we can't see, it's Good...

If he is omniscient and omnipotent, he doesn't need to test people and can't be jealous and angry when something happens, because not only he already knew that it would happen, but he could have prevented and/or corrected it and if we believe that he is the alpha and the omega (and all the other letters as well), then he is the reason for why it happened and instead of being mad at the puny little creations and making their lives hell on earth, he should chastise himself.

Well he's not really jealous or angry.. just acting in a way similar to how a human would act if they were jealous or angry, so we understand what he wants(and he knows what's best).

Maybe he knows that by going through this process of us making the mistakes, and him not correcting it, the output is better than if he made it perfect in the first place.

So again, no contradiction.

Back to the gnomes.. if you think it is ok to dismiss my claim because i made it up (although i might have had a vision, or the pink unicorn told me or whatever) why can't we do that with the even more ridiculous claims about the countless gods that people believe(d) in? I am sure, no, i KNOW that they are all made up, many of them simply disfigured versions of other bed time stories,

Well a big difference, is we didn't see them claiming to make something up..

If you had claimed to have a vision and it was unverifiable, maybe I couldn't know if you made it up

But of course i'd dismiss the claim, and believe it is false. Or if not believe it is false, then strongly suspect it's false, and not or hardly entertain it being right..

so why should i try to be "intellectually honest" and keep a door open for them?
Keep in mind that they can't all be right.. Actually pretty much only 1 version can be true since they usually exclude the others. Instead of leaving the door open for all of them i simply close it for all. They can open it by coming out of deluded people's heads and proving their own existence.. for a start.. then they might explain us why the universe is such a mess and start doing something about it.
Personally i think the gnomes hold more ground in reality than any of the deities, but it is not a reason for me to think they might be real :lol:

so you haven't locked the door, it may as well be open. . by your reasoning, one could say you should've locked it..
it's a metaphor.. leaving the door open.. or unlocked..

In either case, the person can under certain conditions, walk through the door.. and that's the point.


there's a difference between something having 0% chance of being believed, given the evidence.

And saying something has 0% chance of it being true. (i'm not sure one can do that for anything)

Suppose a miracle happened and nobody saw it.. I could go with your metaphor or mine, saying the same thing, they're not going to get through the door. Either it's open for them to come in but they're not coming in.. Or it's closed, unlocked, but you've left it for them to open it on conditions, but they're not opening it.

Anyhow, we can look at things like this.. There are a bunch of beliefs around us.. and we have limited time, it's like they're dropping down on us like balloons.. and we want to have as many true beliefs as possible and as few false beliefs as possible.. The best way to do this, the most reliable way, seems to test the beliefs and be consistent.. But because of the multitude of false beliefs out there, and frauds.. some true beliefs that don't have much evidence, could slip through the net and be dismissed.

The point though with the pink unicorn or the gnomes, or biblical or quranic gods, is they are implausible, so going beyond dismissing them, and believing they are false..or at least suspecting that they are false.. Same as deities..

Also theistic claims like with the Bible and Quran have built up some sophisticated arguments ...So if one wants to examine the claim one should look at evidence that it's true , and counters. Might I suspect or believe or bet it's true. Evidence that it's false, and counters.. Might I suspect or believe or bet it's false..
Though in the case of theistic claims.. some people have already heard most of the arguments.. or the best ones.. and think it's false.. others can just see it's a load of rubbish without giving it as much of a hearing.. I think they're justified in doing so.. it may or may not be wise.. Sometimes people don't give it a hearing, they think they're clever in not giving it a hearing, but then because of their own stupidity, they are convinced that it's true when they do give it a hearing!

 

[varit]

...Sadly, it so happens that McGinn ..

Why after all the confusion of bringing up a definition "atheists believe" that you yourself introduced and said was wrong..

do you quote it -again-.

Nobody accepts that definition not even you who quoted it.

It confused people before because it got people critiquing it as if anybody here accepted it..

You now quoted it again. People could then start critiquing the definition nobody accepts -again-.. We know why it's a wrong definition.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

I think that the term "atheist" is somewhat of a generic and rarely qualified term, when contextualized in this way. There is more than one school of atheism, as you know. Sadly, it so happens that McGinn fell into the pellucidly vacuous path of utilizing the term 'atheist' here, apparently failing to acknowledge the multiplicity of schools as I said, within that group. Colin McGinn is a "Strong Atheist" (as am I). The absence of belief in God or gods, is "weak" or "negative" atheism. I assume you fall within the second category, and not the former, yes?

Rrrr...rr....rrrr....wrong. (Damn that failed).

I fall within the former.


And how DARE you advertise your threads? Bad boy!

 

[Thomas Doubting]

oh man.. i know the rectally extracted ways to defend everything they believe in.. i don't want an atheist to demonstrate that after i heard it 1000 times from people who really believe that stuff
I even made a challenge to all theists to try to refutre any claim from any other holy books, and i will use their "reasoning" to defend the claims, nobody ever managed to refute anything and most people said i am using "faulty logic" and interpreting too much in the text.
On the other hand, as I already said in some other thread, i know that some versions of god have nothing to do with logic, they could do a lot of things, but as soon as somebody tries to define their god, especially as depicted in the ancient books, it becomes ridiculous.. and they use all their imagination can offer to twist and stretch any crap as much as needed to stay halfway possible, but if we are using critical thinking and "healthy" logic, their crap just doesn't make sense. Oh before i forget, they did say he is a jealous and angry god, but how could he be if he is all good, loving and forgiving?

Show More Hide

{TEXT}

And here few examples for Yahweh defying absolute logic, there are even more but this should be enough for a start.

contradictions

 

[varit]

<snip>but if we are using critical thinking and "healthy" logic, their crap just doesn't make sense. <snip>

Yeah but to say it's a contradiction, look. To believe A and NOT A, is a contradiction, and no matter how much you suspend critical thinking, you can't get away from it. (though thinking from a theologian perspective, i'm not so sure!). But see they suspend critical thinking in order to find a reason why they are not believing A and NOT A. That's not a contradiction!

I suppose if suspending critical thinking, it is possible to deny knowledge, thus deny facts, and create a contradiction.. But they could always interpret their book in a way that doesn't, or argue that what you think is knowledge, is not , is not on firm ground. So therefore they wouldn't be believing in A and NOT A.

You can be a logically consistent theist. It does involve suspension of critical thinking.. but doesn't mean logical contradictions.

In suspending critical thinking, you can be imaginative of what reality is, and imaginative in interpreting what your book says, and hold beliefs that aren't contradictory.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

well to keep it short for a change.. you can't believe the qur'an or the bible without cherry picking and denying reality.. making their belief ridiculous and not worth considering.

 

[varit]

well to keep it short for a change.. you can't believe the qur'an or the bible without cherry picking and denying reality.. making their belief ridiculous and not worth considering.

An organised theology establishing what applies and what doesn't.. is not cherry picking.. Neither necessarily, is an individual deciding, based on his own methodology..

We have a methodology for trying to determine what to believe and what not to..

Not every belief is necessarily what we like. But it fits the rules we've determined..

But theism does often deny reality, (I don't know if it always does e.g. those that make many things metaphor).. and of course their belief is ridiculous.. I think it is worth considering as a candidate thing we perhaps should believe, but we've just already considered it years ago, and rejected it strongly.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

An organized theology? Please don't make me laugh.. they remind me of some guys i saw in a loony bin who stole some toilet brushes and made masks with toilet paper and tried to take over the mental house that we went to visit with the class, just that the religious people actually succeeded a long time ago and motivated others to do the same in their part of the world.
I am not sure how you come to the conclusion.. but if you go through just that one link that i put up there there should be no doubt about it..
if there is a verse saying "Dude got hit by a car on 01.01.0001"
and another one says "Dude didn't get hit by a car on 01.01.0001"
then whichever version you accept from there is - cherry picking

You can interpret it the way you want but it stays incoherent condtradictive nonsense, obsolete knowledge and made up illogical crap, selected idiocy from several books thrown together on a pile.. in short unbelievable and ridiculous and far away from reason and reality.
They can keep twisting adjusting and stretching it all they want, that won't change a thing.
I deny it and same i do with anything alike, strongly, honestly and logically.
What they have is bullshit with no basis in reality.
If they want to believe in a deity which doesn't defy logic and reality they will have to toss their books aside and write a new one, the problem with that is.. it would be an officially made up entity and not something that our ancestors pulled out of their butts, which seems to be reason enough to keep it in "holy land" instead of burning most of the books and putting a few in the museum to remind us of the ignorant brainfucked times that humanity had (has) to go through.

Instead of looking for ways to keep it possible (in their opinion) by pulling more and more ridiculous apologetic nonsense out of their asses and ignoring half of their own teachings (because they don't like it or it refutes the other half lol) they shoud rather try to stick to reality and wait for their imaginary friends to REALLY give them a reason to believe in them, or just live their lives as their own bosses and stop waiting for Sky Daddy to beam them up to heaven and grant them their eternal orgasms.


I say there might (have) be(en) something that somebody might call "god" but that being(s) are 100% not to be found in the bible or torah or qur'an or any other holy mountain of crap on a bunch of paper, not even in any of the deluded humans' heads.
The gods as we know them are clearly human constructs, stories to brag about or tell to your kids as bedtime stories, in many cases simply tools to keep idiots obedient and willing to brainwash the entire planet even thousands of years after the assholes who made them up bit the dust.

Now a short question.. do you think i am intellectually dishonest or stupid or whatever for not only not believing it but also saying that there is no way for it to be true for any of the defined versions?

 

[varit]

<snip>
if there is a verse saying "Dude got hit by a car on 01.01.0001"
and another one says "Dude didn't get hit by a car on 01.01.0001"
then whichever version you accept from there is - cherry picking

No, it could be referring to a different car..or a different dude. (And that's not implausible at all). And if it's the exact same name, then one could then still plausibly say that it's a different person but same name.

One of those verses could be amongst many poetic verses, another could be amongst verses that seem literal.. So one might reason that the one amongst poetic verses is poetic.. and metaphorical..(though that'd still be strange and somewhat implausible)

or One or both could be warnings of what could happen.. When you have a text written in an ancient language, tense is not always obvious, and something like "Got hit" in the original language could also mean "would get hit". Translators particularly of ancient texts of languages no longer spoken, face such problems.. Sometimes they judge by context, other times it's not clear and they guess, one translator says one thing, another another thing, since both meanings are possible and the meaning is not known.

The book could have some -apparent- contradictions that are so blatant, that it must be normal for that to happen and obvious that it means something else. To an objection that it seems so obvious that it's a contradiction.. one could point to a verse that says X and a verse that says not X, within a few verses of each other, and say clearly the author couldn't have been such an idiot, it was intentional to teach something.

Not all of the above are implausible.

Your made up example looks better than the first two things in your list.

The thing is you can -accept both-, but interpret them differently , in a way that is consistent.

It's not cherry picking. Serious believers don't cherry pick.

Anyhow, looking at that link you mention the first two in the list.

1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6
2. God dwells in chosen temples
2 Chron 7:12,16
God dwells not in temples
Acts 7:48


That is totally pathetic, I checked the first reference, and can guess about the second reference, there are very plausible explanations that don't contradict.. Infact to say they contradict, you'd have to be making no effort whatsoever to understand what the text is saying.


You yourself provided much better examples eg divine attributes conflicting.. or the made up example of the dude getting hit by the car.

Instead of looking for ways to keep it possible (in their opinion) by pulling more and more ridiculous apologetic nonsense out of their asses and ignoring half of their own teachings (because they don't like it or it refutes the other half lol)

Christians aren't "ignoring" the old testament.. they have a theology that explains very neatly, something along the lines of, it was followed before Jesus, and not after..

It's not ignored, it has a place in their theology.

Not every verse must apply at all times. Even in Law, there could be much that doesn't apply anymore because circumstances have changed.. it doesn't mean those laws are being "overlooked" or "ignored"..like "pretend they don't exist"..

they shoud rather try to stick to reality and wait for their imaginary friends to REALLY give them a reason to believe in them, or just live their lives as their own bosses and stop waiting for Sky Daddy to beam them up to heaven and grant them their eternal orgasms.

I agree.

But I think that in accusing them of cherry picking, you're not giving them enough credit for the way they work within the prison of a system they've built for themselves. Taking all the elements of their religion and trying to find a consistent understanding. And it's not necessarily what they like. Infact as you suggest, they think the cherries are in the hereafter.

Now a short question.. do you think i am intellectually dishonest or stupid or whatever for not only not believing it but also saying that there is no way for it to be true for any of the defined versions?

Worth bearing in mind, sometimes people look at reality, and say "No Way!!!!" (Of course, they never predicted it, ).. But good journalists perhaps , and good scientific research would find these things, and not magic men or old books saying so on their or its authority.

So, you've chosen a colloquial expression..

In practice, no way.. In theory.. I suppose it could..

and so could the -maybes- that the agnostic with respect to reality, uses to say why he's not gnostic.

it's just a colloquial expression..

so not good to use in rational discourse.. We only seem to have certain buttons..
"Know"
"Believe"
"Don't believe it is, Don't believe it isn't - can't say either way"
"Believe it's not"..
"Know it's not"


If there was nobody around to see how brave you are, and if you didn't even value bravery.. would you be willing to bet your testicles on it being false, without a moment of concern? If you were frequently given chances, to bet your testicles, would you ever have a moment of concern... How about if you were 16 with the beliefs are now.. and your testicles are everything to you, more than your life. That could show how strongly you believe it's not.. Though it could also show foolishness and bad judgement.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

my life depended on the fact in which god i want or don't want to believe (complicated story.. war in Bosnia and Hercegovina), i always stayed true to myself and my (dis)beliefs
i bet my testicles on many things even before i hit 16 (hint: i still got em)
yes i would bet my testicles on the fact that all their gods are not existent in reality, they can be only found in their heads and their books, if anything like that exists then it didn't inspire anybody to write a book or start any wars etc.
If you can prove me wrong i will remove my balls in an instant.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Varit, what you're saying COULD be applied when it comes to the bible...



...if it wasn't for one small problem..



... it can't. Direct contradictions in the bible, you can't escape them unless you cherry pick. And if your idea of an organized methodology is choosing whatever comes in handy your life... jeez.

 

[varit]

my life depended on the fact in which god i want or don't want to believe (complicated story.. war in Bosnia and Hercegovina), i always stayed true to myself and my (dis)beliefs
i bet my testicles on many things even before i hit 16 (hint: i still got em)
yes i would bet my testicles on the fact that all their gods are not existent in reality, they can be only found in their heads and their books, if anything like that exists then it didn't inspire anybody to write a book or start any wars etc.
If you can prove me wrong i will remove my balls in an instant.

well, I don't think anybody can prove that wrong, infact, even science with its theories, doesn't work with "proofs"..

also the bet is that if you were wrong, whether or not somebody could prove it.. if it turned out you were wrong, then you'd lose them.. Sometimes things can be true even if they don't give off enough evidence for us to believe. You would still bet your testicles.

You would perhaps be, a very tough positive atheist or a testicle betting atheist, as opposed to just a positive atheist. You're an atheist that puts not just your money where your mouth is, but your testicles. I'm just joking about the fact that we don't seem to have the right words or definitions to describe strength of beliefs.. but not joking about the position. (though when I said about not just money where your mouth is but testicles where your mouth is, I suppose I was joking about the position ;-) )

 

[varit]

Varit, what you're saying COULD be applied when it comes to the bible...

...if it wasn't for one small problem..

... it can't. Direct contradictions in the bible, you can't escape them unless you cherry pick. And if your idea of an organized methodology is choosing whatever comes in handy your life... jeez.

If you hadn't noticed, we've been talking about the bible, and biblical god, which we agree is false. I just don't think much of the first two on that list, i'm not checking all of them, I have no need to. I would guess that some are better than the first two. But the first two were just pathetic, and if you can't see that, at least for the first one, which I looked up, then you're not looking honestly. In the case of that first one, it's a wild stretch to come up with an implausible explanation, it's not what i'd consider an apparent contradiction at all. It's true, that when you have a bunch of these things each of which seem contradictory, then you have a good argument against.

And no a true believer isn't necessarily choosing whatever comes in handy in their life. They are choosing what makes sense, given certain (wrong) beliefs, and it may not be handy.

 

[Vanlavak]

God exist because we have made a word and given a definition to it.
The concept of gods was formulated to describe our environment; water, sun, moon, ect.
So all these gods must exist.
Ergo, god is the theoretical force behind everything that is occurring.
The logic of the way natural flow of events has lead to the belief that the driving force behind all nature is humanistic.
And so the only problem here is that people think that the natural flow of events is humanistic, rather then letting it be whatever it actually is in their thoughts.

This is why atheism is silly and agnosticism is wise.

 

[Deleted member 619]

Well, if agnosticism and atheism meant what you thought they did, you'd be correct. Unfortunately...